Monday, April 22, 2013

BACKGROUND.Conservatives are legitimately alarmed
about the Obama Administration Common Core curriculum pressed onto our public
schools.The regime heavily pushes this
curricula through its $4.35 billion 2009 Race to the Top education grant
competition bribery.Many states have
embraced Common Core to grab these massive grants.States that accepted its precepts received bonus
points in their applications.This plan
awards points to states that adopt this common set of K-12 standards that are
mostly identical all over America. Obama’s Education Dept. has awarded over
$360 million to 2 liberal groups to create student assessments in Common
Core.Obama herded states into adopting
these standards without time to deliberate on their adequacy, requiring
adoption approved by state education dept. officials, if states want to obtain
federal waivers from the 2002 No Child Left Behind law.If Obama succeeds, states like NE will lose
federal funds by adhering to their own standards, denied access to Race to the
Top federal dollars for refusing Common Core.

VALID CRITICISM.Common Core eradicates local school board
control over the K-12 math and English curricula, substituting a lone,
federally-imposed curricula that applies to public, private, parochial, and
home schools.Proponents advise that
national standards will improve academic performance; however, these new
standards evidence no proof that they are better than current NE
standards.No district has tested these
standards, which use unproved instructional methods. These standards base on
unproved ideas and questionable assumptions.The job of teaching our kids is too important to depend on untested,
common methods pushed by companies that have financial interests in selling textbooks,
technology, and academic assessment but not accountable to parents or
taxpayers. Several private corporations will make huge profits, with less money
reaching classrooms. Our children will
become guinea pigs. In Massachusetts,
adopting Common Core meant dumping academic standards regarded as the best in
the nation.In many states, Common Core
standards are inferior to state standards.There exists no evidence that a federal curriculum brings high academic
achievement.France and Denmark boast
national curricula that do not reflect high achievement on international
testing.Contrarily, both Canada and
Australia use many regional curricula and show better results.[1]A Brookings Institution study found that
common state standards do little to equalize academic achievement among states.[2]Instruction
is confusing.Common Core requires
pupils to explain a math problem before doing the calculation, complicating the
teaching of basic math.Teachers become
confused with the unfamiliarity of teaching this product.Students do not learn traditional math, like
multiplication, until a grade or two later. In Common Core math, kids abandon
concrete skills for abstract confusing methodology.Elementary kids who got “A” grades struggle
to explain how they find answers after using mental math in Common Core and get
lower grades.These math standards delay
development of key concepts and skills, instructions written at a level
confusing to teachers, students, parents, and administrators.Math standards not well-organized at the high
school level, several important topics insufficiently covered, and standards
not divided into defined courses. To avoid attention, proponents have focused
only on math and English, aiming to eventually extend Common Core to all
subjects. Math standards are
inferior.A math professor, the only
mathematician on the validation committee, refused to sign off on the math
standards, declaring that they would drop many pupils 2 yrs. behind those in
many other nations.One most tragic
change for English classes is the requirement that 50% or more of readings in
Grades 6-12 come from informational instead of cultural texts.Such means that curricula will not include
many classic works in American and other literature.Popular treatises like Common Sense,
the Gettysburg Address, and To Kill A Mockingbird are not present, only
on a list of reading suggestions.No
research tells that college readiness comes from reading informational items in
high school classes.[3]Conservatives around the country are angry
about the secretive process by which Common Core standards became adopted,
allowing for few or no public hearings, blocked from the legislative process.The conservative Cato Institute noted that
state lawmakers are surprised when academic curricula become snatched from
their prerogatives.Common Core defines
contents for all U.S. K-12 math and English texts and defines what our kids
will learn and not learn.No empirical
validation of standards or metric to monitor intended or unintended
consequences.No early childhood
teachers or child development experts were included in the K-3 standards
formulation process, because Common Core shocked these professionals.Standard writers had no background in child
development or early childhood education.The Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health & Education
Professionals statement criticizing Common Core garnered signatures from over
500 prominent early childhood professionals, like educators, pediatricians,
developmental psychologists, and researchers.The statement read that Common Core conflicts with new research in cognitive
science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about
how young kids learn, what content they should learn, and the best methods to
teach them in kiddiegarden and early grades.Common Core pilots are disappointing.One principal told of his school piloting the assessment, whereby the
failure rate rose dramatically, particularly among slow learners.

COMMON CORE TESTING.After adoption of Common Core curricula, its
standardized testing is approaching fast.No national standardized test can effectively measure what teachers
teach in each public school system.Common Core demands a great increase in testing, much more than the
already excessive amount required by No Child Left Behind.NYC will spend over a half billion on
technology, so that its students can take electronically federal tests.Research proves that increasing testing does
not increase achievement.NE school
districts suffer funding squeezes, but Common Core costs billions for new
textbooks, infrastructure like high speed networks, new software for additional
computers, training, consultants, and tests.

COST
TO TAXPAYERS.Adoption is
expensive, and states adopting Common Core jump into an assessment quagmire without estimates
on costs.Local school administrators
complain that Obama grants do not cover the requirements, costing much more to
implement all the mandates.The
education establishment likewise complained for years about the unexpected
costs of No Child Left Behind.Common
Core will repeat this expensive lesson in forcing another underfunded ed
mandate on states.NE probably would not
qualify for federal funding now, leaving NE taxpayers to pay the entire
bill.

LEFTIST
CURRICULA.One lesson features a
video titled China Rises, that
praises the virtues of Chinese communism over capitalism.The leftist New York Times co-produced
this propaganda piece.Another lesson
regrets children inability to vote, as they understand global warming and war
better than adults who make world problems worse.Common Core uses UN programs to institute
international curricula. Materials promote “alternative lifestyles,” criticize
capitalism, praise labor unions, redistribution of wealth, radical
environmentalism, and social justice, and debase of Judeo-Christianity. The
liberal progressive school-to-work plan will allow the Obama Regime to put
everything in place to plan for future labor markets.Common Core promotes a model of a command
economy and unlimited federal governance.Proponents want to control our schools, so that our children will become
conditioned to accept that the federal government has the right to order them
to serve its economic commands.Government will be the master, not the servant.

ITS FUNDING.Common Core has received funding from the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other leftwing sources.

ITS
SUPPORTERS.The leftwing American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
endorses Common Core. Several creators ofCommon Core standards have accepted
employment with testing companies that will accrue millions of dollars
developing tests based on the standards they created.

HOME SCHOOLS
UNSAFE.Saxon Math and Math U See
both declared that they will align their curriculum, popular among home
schools, with Common Core.

INVASIVENESS.Conservative
parents object to violation of student privacy by data mining through
assessment means. Common Core creates a student database including test scores,
hobbies, family income, voting status, and health records, a violation of
individual rights and limited government. [4]Data mining includes
using cameras to evaluate kid facial expressions, electronic seat that judges
postures, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse, and a biometric wrap on wrists.

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.Board members voted 7-1 (John Sieler
voted with taxpayers) to pay a consultant company $47,000 to compare NE
standards alignment to Common Core, due in October, 2013, a hint that the board
majority will embrace the latter curricula.The State Board of Education must give final approval of state
curriculum standards and assessments. School districts should not use Common
Core yet, as the state board has not adopted it yet.We urge taxpayers to contact their state
board of education member to pass the following resolution:

Notwithstanding any other statute, the
state board of education shall not adopt, and the NE Dept. of Education shall
not implement, Common Core standards developed by the Common Core Standards
Initiative.Actions pursued to adopt or
implement the Common Core State Standards are void.Common Core State Standards shall not be
adopted or implemented without the approval of the NE Legislature.

LEGISLATURE.Sen. Jim Scheer from Norfolk introduced LB 512,
to order the state to accept Common Core national assessments and allow the
state board of education to proceed with this curricula. We must lobby our
state senators to kill LB 512, then co-sponsor and support legislation to
ban NE from adopting and spending money on all activities relating to Common
Core, like training teachers or buying materials.Also, press them to pass a bill to forbid
sharing of private student information without parental consent.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.As awareness of this federal education power
grab increases, opposition mounts.States now realize that accepting Common Core means transferring control
of school curriculum to the Obama Regime.Only Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, and a few other states are steadfastly
resisting, and others have withdrawn participation or are considering
such.Common Core violates the U.S.
Constitution and several federal statutes that prohibit federal direction,
control, or supervision of curricula, instruction, and materials in K-12
schools.This plan is a serious assault
on state sovereignty, a power grab by which the Obama Regime will directly
target school districts.This federal
intervention will cripple state, local, and parental authority over curricula and
cost states $16 billion in new spending.[5]

TAKE ACTION NOW.We still can stop this dangerous scheme
to nationalize education and indoctrinate our children.Do not permit nameless, faceless, unelected
and unaccountable bureaucrats to seize control of NE public education.Contact your state board of education member
and state senator today to stop the progress of Common Core in Nebraska.Email netaxpayers@gmail.com for their contact
information.

Research, analysis, and
documentation for this issue paper done by Nebraska
Taxpayers for Freedom, with prior permission granted for its use by other
groups in the NE Conservative Coalition
Network.4-13.C

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Abstract:Academic literature has consistently illustrated
that Medicaid patients—adults and children—have inferior access to
health care, and notably poorer health outcomes, than privately insured
patients. Due to the program's low reimbursement rates, more and more
doctors are refusing to even accept Medicaid. As a result, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for Medicaid patients to find access to
primary and specialty care physicians. When Medicaid patients are
admitted to hospitals, they are often admitted with more serious
conditions than those with private insurance. By further expanding this
broken program, Obamacare will only exacerbate the situation, continuing
to harm many low-income Americans who have no option other than
Medicaid. Policymakers should reform Medicaid to allow Medicaid patients
access to private insurance in a consumer-driven market.

Established as a fundamental component of President Lyndon Johnson's
Great Society, Medicaid is a jointly funded federal and state program
that pays for health care for low-income individuals. The academic
literature has consistently illustrated that Medicaid patients have
poorer access to care, and poorer health outcomes, than privately
insured patients. By further expanding this broken program, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - only exacerbates the
situation. Policymakers should reform Medicaid to provide consumers with
greater access to private insurance in a consumer-driven market.

Medicaid typically pays physicians 56 percent of the amount that private insurers pay.[1] Given these low reimbursement rates, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicaid.[2]
As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Medicaid
patients to find primary care doctors and specialists. When Medicaid
patients are admitted to hospitals, they are often admitted with more
serious conditions, and in some cases, with a higher level of
co-morbidity, than privately insured patients. The peer-reviewed
academic literature clearly illustrates Medicaid's problems for children
as well as for adults.

Children Suffer Under Medicaid

Medicaid undermines care for millions of children. Consider, for
example, children with asthma, one of the most common chronic diseases
affecting children in the United States. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved
compares hospital care for children with asthma who are covered by
Medicaid to children with asthma who are covered by private insurance in
California, Georgia, and Michigan.[3]
The authors found slightly longer length of stay and significantly
poorer outpatient care for the children on Medicaid. In terms of
outpatient care, the authors specifically found that pediatric Medicaid
patients were more likely than privately insured patients to be
discharged on subpar medication routines. The authors also found that
Medicaid patients generally lacked a consistent source of outpatient
care, unlike privately insured patients. These issues with outpatient
care suggest that these children are more likely to be re-admitted for
hospitalization at a subsequent time in the future.

Adequate access to care is also a serious problem for children on Medicaid. A 2004 study published in Pediatrics examined children’s access to specialty surgeons in Southern California.[4]
The researchers surveyed specialty surgeons throughout southern
California and found that the surgeons are generally less inclined to
accept patients enrolled in Medi-Cal (California’s version of the
Medicaid program). The surgeons cited difficult paperwork,
administrative burdens, and poor reimbursement rates as reasons for not
wanting to take on these patients. The authors consequently caution
policymakers about expanding this program, noting that coverage through
Medi-Cal does not necessarily signify meaningful access to health care.
The authors also suggest that expanding Medi-Cal may in fact exacerbate
the existing problems of limited access to care.

Another study published in 2005 in Urology found similar problems with boys’ access to urologic care.[5]
The authors surveyed a simple random sample of urologic offices located
throughout California in order to determine the offices’ attitudes
toward Medi-Cal recipients. Of the offices they found that were willing
to see pediatric patients, the authors found that 96 percent of these
offices would accept privately insured patients. They also found that
only 41 percent of these offices would accept Medi-Cal patients.
Three-quarters of the offices that refused to accept Medi-Cal patients
were unable to even recommend offices that would.

Furthermore, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine examined pediatric access to specialty clinics in Cook County, Illinois.[6]
Sending out research assistants posing as mothers and making phone
calls to a random sample of specialty clinics, the study found a
significant disparity between access to specialty care for privately
insured children and children on Medicaid as well as the publicly funded
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Specifically, the
researchers noted more denials of appointments as well as longer waiting
times for Medicaid and CHIP patients than for privately insured
patients.

These studies suggest that children on Medicaid lack access to the
kind of care that privately insured patients enjoy. As long as the
program in its current form remains in place, these problems will
persist.

Adults Suffer Under Medicaid

Children are not the only ones Medicaid is failing. A number of
academic studies have also pointed out the disparities in health
outcomes between adult Medicaid recipients and those who are privately
insured.

A 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine
found that breast cancer patients in New Jersey were often diagnosed
with more advanced stages of the disease and had higher risks of death
if they received their insurance coverage through Medicaid instead of
private insurance.[7] These findings have been corroborated by a number of subsequent studies looking at a variety of serious illnesses:

A 2000 study published in Cancer examined health outcomes of
breast cancer patients in Florida. The study found that, as a result of
later diagnoses, Medicaid patients have higher mortality rates than
patients who are covered by commercial fee-for-service insurance.[8]

A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Public Health
that examines colorectal cancer treatments and outcomes found that
Medicaid patients not only had higher mortality rates, but were also
less likely to receive cancer-directed surgery, than patients using
commercial fee-for-service insurance.[9]

A 2001 study published in Cancer compared health outcomes
for a variety of cancers for patients in Michigan. The study found that
Medicaid patients had significantly higher rates of occurrence as well
as higher risks of death for breast, cervix, colon, and lung cancers
compared to non-Medicaid patients. The study also found that Medicaid
patients had a higher risk of being diagnosed with these cancers at
later stages.[10]

A 2003 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine
that compares health outcomes for colorectal, lung, prostate, and
breast cancer in Kentucky for a variety of insurance classifications
also found similar results. For all four illnesses, the authors found
that survival rates are markedly higher for privately insured patients
than for Medicaid patients.[11]

Most recently, a 2010 study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine
found similar results for non-cancer-related illness. In this study,
the authors examine the relationship between insurance status and health
outcomes for myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumonia patients.[12]
The authors statistically analyzed a nationally representative hospital
database and noticed, even after adjusting for factors such as age,
gender, income, other illnesses, and severity, higher in-hospital
mortality rates for Medicaid patients than for privately insured
patients. Additionally, even after adjusting for these factors, the
study found that Medicaid patients hospitalized for strokes and
pneumonia also ran up higher costs than the privately insured, as well
as the uninsured.

Medicaid: Hinders Access to Care, Fails to Meet Patients’ Needs

A number of academic studies over the years have illustrated that
Medicaid patients have consistently had poor access to care and that
Medicaid fails to meet important needs:

A 1992 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined hospitalizations in Massachusetts and Maryland.[13]
The study found that Medicaid and uninsured patients were statistically
more likely than privately insured patients to be hospitalized for
avoidable conditions such as pneumonia and diabetes.

A 2007 study in Health Affairs examined access to specialty services for patients who receive primary care from community health centers.[14]
The study found that Medicaid recipients have significantly more
difficulty accessing specialty care than privately insured patients.

A 2012 study in Health Affairs examined physicians’
willingness to accept new patients. Using survey data from a nationally
representative sample, the study found that nearly one-third of
physicians nationwide will not accept new Medicaid patients. Doctors in
smaller practices, as well as doctors in metropolitan areas, are among
the least inclined to accept new Medicaid patients.[15] The authors’ results suggest that this reluctance may largely be a consequence of Medicaid’s poor payment rates to doctors.

Given these findings in the peer-reviewed literature, it is not
surprising that Medicaid patients often arrive at emergency rooms in
poor, and in many cases, untreatable condition. In fact, research has
shown that Medicaid and CHIP patients end up in emergency rooms even
more frequently than uninsured patients.[16]

Solutions

As the academic research has consistently suggested, Medicaid’s
so-called safety net cripples the very people it is designed to help. To
fix the broken safety net, Congress should consider the following.[17]

Repeal Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion. One of
Obamacare’s greatest pretenses is that it improves access to health
care. The new law attempts to achieve this goal by dumping millions more
patients into the broken Medicaid system. Recent Heritage Foundation
research has statistically illustrated the debilitating effect that
Medicaid expansion will impose on state governments.[18]

Some proponents will likely argue that Obamacare addresses access
issues by providing additional federal funding to increase physician
reimbursement to Medicare levels. However, this additional federal
reimbursement is only temporary and solely applies to primary care
physicians. As a result, it is only a matter of time until state budgets
become more burdened and a lack of access to meaningful health care
becomes even more of a problem nationwide.[19]

Maximize access to private health insurance for Medicaid beneficiaries. The
best approach to improving access and outcomes would be to integrate
the success of private health insurance into the Medicaid system. Some
states, such as Florida, have pursued reforms in the past decade by
giving Medicaid patients a choice of private managed care plans. A
five-county pilot version of the program flattened Medicaid costs and
had been saving the state slightly under $120 million annually.
Additionally, the program overall noted greater access to care, higher
degrees of patient satisfaction, and a marked improvement in health
outcomes.[20]

The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream proposal
goes further. It recommends transitioning non-disabled Medicaid
beneficiaries out of the failing Medicaid program and into private
health insurance and integrating private, patient-centered models into
Medicaid to better serve the disabled and frail elderly.[21]

Conclusion

Medicaid is a prime example of government’s inability to
outperform—or even keep up with—the private sector. Academic research
has consistently illustrated that the program is associated with poorer
access to care and poorer health outcomes than private insurance. With
the right reforms, however, lawmakers can significantly expand Medicaid
patients’ access to private health insurance and put low-cost,
high-quality care back in the hands of those truly in need.

—Kevin D. Dayaratna is Graduate Fellow in the Center for Health Care Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.